The High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Amravati Bench) ruled that the punishment of compulsory retirement ordered for opting conscious bigamous marriage by a constable of a uniformed police force, is not disproportionate at all. The Court therefore upheld the disciplinary orders imposing compulsory retirement on the petitioner (a member of a uniformed force) for entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of the first.
Discarding the conscious opting of two marriages by the petitioner under pressure of parents as a lame excuse, the Court denied any sympathy and concluded that such conduct constitutes misconduct under Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules and Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, and that major penalties may be imposed for violations involving members of disciplined forces.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma observed that for the misconduct of a public servant, the penalties are prescribed as per service rules, leaving the discretion to the disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment depending on the gravity of the misconduct. The second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is not merely a moral turpitude. It is an offence under penal laws.
The Bench also observed that the absence of criminal prosecution cannot be an excuse, as the procedure for penalising under criminal law and the procedure for taking action in terms of service law are separate wings.
The Bench noted that the Single Judge appears to have been convinced by the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that he had obtained a divorce by mutual consent with the previous wife and that the compulsory retirement would have an effect on the family members dependent on the petitioner.
However, the disciplinary authority observed that, considering 10 years of service to the organisation and family responsibilities, by exercising the power conferred under Rule 32 of CISF Rules, in conjunction with Rule 34 of sub-Rule (iii) CISF Rules, 2001, a penalty of compulsory retirement from service with 2/3rd gratuity is awarded. The appellate authority also specifically observed that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority under the impugned award is found to be well commensurate with the gravity of the rule and charge.
While asserting that interfering with the quantum of punishment is not advisable unless the quantum of punishment shocks the conscience of the Court, the Bench therefore set aside the orders passed by the Single Judge, and restored the orders passed by the disciplinary authority imposing compulsory retirement of the petitioner.
Briefly, the dispute relates to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against a constable of a uniformed force on the allegation that he entered into a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting, in violation of Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, 2001. The disciplinary authority issued a memorandum framing two charges: contracting a second marriage without obtaining a decree of divorce from the first spouse, and suppressing the existence of the first marriage. After conducting an inquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement with two-thirds gratuity.
The petitioner challenged the penalty through an appeal and a revision, both of which were dismissed. He thereafter approached the Court, contending that his second marriage occurred under pressure from family circumstances, that his first marriage had broken down, and that the penalty was harsh and unrelated to his official duties. This was opposed by the department, contending that the employee, as a member of a disciplined force, was prohibited from entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of the first.
Appearances:
Advocate Venna Hemanth Kumar, for the Petitioner
Advocate PSP Suresh Kumar, for the Respondent
